The use of inspiration as a multimedia plenary activity for improving the cognitive assimilation of Biology 12 students.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unit plenary activities are review activities used at the end of an educational unit. This thesis examined the effects of using Inspiration, a concept mapping computer program, as a plenary activity on summative assessment scores, compared the effectiveness of Inspiration to Review Worksheets/Discussion, explored the effects of Inspiration on Understanding, Knowledge and Higher Order Process, examined time on-task behaviours and plenary completion rates, and examined student perception of the effectiveness of Inspiration as a plenary with two classes of Biology 12 students. An action research methodology was applied to collect data from two senior classes. Quantitative data was collected using pre-/post-test results, time on-task behavior, and assignment completion. Qualitative data was collected to identify student perception of the plenary and student study habits. The findings indicate that Inspiration statistically significantly improved summative scores, Understanding, Knowledge, time on-task behaviours, and plenary completion rates. The Inspiration and Review Worksheet/Discussion plenary activities were not statistically different in improving summative scores. --P. ii.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".